The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Will the future of consoles be all down to release games and looks? Or will Pixels and Ram be the most important factors?
I personally think that choosing a console should involve the long term game release schedule and the ease of use and user-friendliness. But some companies seem to think that what their console looks like is the most important thing, as well as hyping up the release games. My friends at school argue over some consoles being better than others, and it usually ends in Ant saying, 'at least the PS2 looks stylish, the N64 is a fat box'. As I take a look at the X-box, I see stylish controllers and a well designed console. I look at the PS2 and see a sleek ekegant thing. I look and the Gamecube and say, well at least Nintendo get the idea! They are not over hyping the release games, and are telling people their long term ideas for the console. They don't pay too much attention to how well it will go with your room! The PS2 was over hyped, and was great at release, but has slowed down somewhat. The GC and X-box remain to be seen, and as for the Dreamcast, Sega didn't over hype it, didn't make it particularly attractive, and failed misserably. I think the developers are over doing release promises and spending too much time designing what the console will look like. Can't they spend more time planning games and the long time life of their console? You decide.
I personally think that choosing a console should involve the long term game release schedule and the ease of use and user-friendliness. But some companies seem to think that what their console looks like is the most important thing, as well as hyping up the release games. My friends at school argue over some consoles being better than others, and it usually ends in Ant saying, 'at least the PS2 looks stylish, the N64 is a fat box'. As I take a look at the X-box, I see stylish controllers and a well designed console. I look at the PS2 and see a sleek ekegant thing. I look and the Gamecube and say, well at least Nintendo get the idea! They are not over hyping the release games, and are telling people their long term ideas for the console. They don't pay too much attention to how well it will go with your room! The PS2 was over hyped, and was great at release, but has slowed down somewhat. The GC and X-box remain to be seen, and as for the Dreamcast, Sega didn't over hype it, didn't make it particularly attractive, and failed misserably. I think the developers are over doing release promises and spending too much time designing what the console will look like. Can't they spend more time planning games and the long time life of their console? You decide.
Consoles dont use one chip... they just have loads of chips on board... its just the graphics and sound chips are welded onto the motherboard withe the CPU... there not detachable and interchangable and upgradable like PC's... which if your using a console is no bad thing...
savatt1668 : thats why they crash! :)
-- To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
savatt1668 : thats why they crash! :)
-- To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
Maybe it's the number of Cards in your machine or how much work it has to do, whatever consoles wouldn't need big chips and cards to run itself, the X-Box does run using several cards using a large PC like OS system.
All a console needs is a circuit board and a small chip that runs the whole console on it's own.
That's the problem with playing it so long!
All a console needs is a circuit board and a small chip that runs the whole console on it's own.
That's the problem with playing it so long!
Yeah - and they still bloody crash
A console carries only a small chip. A PC craiies several cards on it.
FantasyMeisteŽ wrote:
> I don't think you can really qualify the statement that the DC was a
> flop, seeing as it's Sega's most successful console to
> date...
Er....I don't think so! I am not being rude or anything but the Mega Drive Had to be Sega's best console, maybe more Dreamcast units sold but Sega had most of the Console market share with their MD than they did with the DC percentage wise.
The MD was the cream of the crop, the whole f'n show, THE console, I still have mine and a bucket load of games....I think I'll play it now...hmmm...
Although it didn't quite have the RPG's that the SNES boasted the MD had it's fair share of crackers, Ecco and Sonic were both hits and that cool fighting game you know the one with Xavier...
Anyway, Although it was only 16 bit compared to the DC's 128 bit, the MD was and always will be my 'First and Favourite Console'!!!
The Game
> I don't think you can really qualify the statement that the DC was a
> flop, seeing as it's Sega's most successful console to
> date...
Er....I don't think so! I am not being rude or anything but the Mega Drive Had to be Sega's best console, maybe more Dreamcast units sold but Sega had most of the Console market share with their MD than they did with the DC percentage wise.
The MD was the cream of the crop, the whole f'n show, THE console, I still have mine and a bucket load of games....I think I'll play it now...hmmm...
Although it didn't quite have the RPG's that the SNES boasted the MD had it's fair share of crackers, Ecco and Sonic were both hits and that cool fighting game you know the one with Xavier...
Anyway, Although it was only 16 bit compared to the DC's 128 bit, the MD was and always will be my 'First and Favourite Console'!!!
The Game
I don't think you can really qualify the statement that the DC was a flop, seeing as it's Sega's most successful console to date...
But you are right about the design thing, if a console looked like a turnip yet still played good games, then I'd still be happy to buy it.
I think the manufacturers are starting to look at aesthetics of consoles (how pretty they look) because the demographics of the gaming community has shifted from the nerdy type who sits in a darkened room all day with the phosphorous glow of a screen casting gloomy shadows about the place (me), to a much wider breed of gamer:- the yuppies who only play now and again but want a console to go with their Feng Shui decor, the housewife who wants a console to match the carpet, the older gamers who want something with just a couple of buttons that is easy to use, the younger market who need a more robust console that is jam resistant, the politicians, the doctors, the nurses, the kiddies in hospitals, the insane, the unemployed, the dustmen, the gardeners......a wide and varied selection of gamer is now in the market place, and the manufacturers have to please all of the people all of the time, which is a difficult task.
The hardcore gamer is now in the minority. So console design has shifted to take that into account.
But you are right about the design thing, if a console looked like a turnip yet still played good games, then I'd still be happy to buy it.
I think the manufacturers are starting to look at aesthetics of consoles (how pretty they look) because the demographics of the gaming community has shifted from the nerdy type who sits in a darkened room all day with the phosphorous glow of a screen casting gloomy shadows about the place (me), to a much wider breed of gamer:- the yuppies who only play now and again but want a console to go with their Feng Shui decor, the housewife who wants a console to match the carpet, the older gamers who want something with just a couple of buttons that is easy to use, the younger market who need a more robust console that is jam resistant, the politicians, the doctors, the nurses, the kiddies in hospitals, the insane, the unemployed, the dustmen, the gardeners......a wide and varied selection of gamer is now in the market place, and the manufacturers have to please all of the people all of the time, which is a difficult task.
The hardcore gamer is now in the minority. So console design has shifted to take that into account.
Will the future of consoles be all down to release games and looks? Or will Pixels and Ram be the most important factors?
I personally think that choosing a console should involve the long term game release schedule and the ease of use and user-friendliness. But some companies seem to think that what their console looks like is the most important thing, as well as hyping up the release games. My friends at school argue over some consoles being better than others, and it usually ends in Ant saying, 'at least the PS2 looks stylish, the N64 is a fat box'. As I take a look at the X-box, I see stylish controllers and a well designed console. I look at the PS2 and see a sleek ekegant thing. I look and the Gamecube and say, well at least Nintendo get the idea! They are not over hyping the release games, and are telling people their long term ideas for the console. They don't pay too much attention to how well it will go with your room! The PS2 was over hyped, and was great at release, but has slowed down somewhat. The GC and X-box remain to be seen, and as for the Dreamcast, Sega didn't over hype it, didn't make it particularly attractive, and failed misserably. I think the developers are over doing release promises and spending too much time designing what the console will look like. Can't they spend more time planning games and the long time life of their console? You decide.
I personally think that choosing a console should involve the long term game release schedule and the ease of use and user-friendliness. But some companies seem to think that what their console looks like is the most important thing, as well as hyping up the release games. My friends at school argue over some consoles being better than others, and it usually ends in Ant saying, 'at least the PS2 looks stylish, the N64 is a fat box'. As I take a look at the X-box, I see stylish controllers and a well designed console. I look at the PS2 and see a sleek ekegant thing. I look and the Gamecube and say, well at least Nintendo get the idea! They are not over hyping the release games, and are telling people their long term ideas for the console. They don't pay too much attention to how well it will go with your room! The PS2 was over hyped, and was great at release, but has slowed down somewhat. The GC and X-box remain to be seen, and as for the Dreamcast, Sega didn't over hype it, didn't make it particularly attractive, and failed misserably. I think the developers are over doing release promises and spending too much time designing what the console will look like. Can't they spend more time planning games and the long time life of their console? You decide.